Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH linux-next] dmaengine: add context parameter fixups
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Alexandre Bounine alexandre.bounine@idt.com wrote:
This patch fixes drivers that use device_prep_slave_sg() and device_prep_dma_cyclic() interfaces and have been missed during the initial release of interface changing patches.
This patch is based on linux-next-20120322 code tree. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/339 for build failure report.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Bounine alexandre.bounine@idt.com Reported-by: Paul Gortmaker paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c | 2 +- drivers/net/irda/sa1100_ir.c | 2 +- sound/soc/sh/fsi.c | 7 +++---- sound/soc/soc-dmaengine-pcm.c | 2 +-
I have already taken care of sound/soc/soc-dmaengine-pcm.c: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/96215
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 12:23 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Alexandre Bounine alexandre.bounine@idt.com wrote:
This patch fixes drivers that use device_prep_slave_sg() and device_prep_dma_cyclic() interfaces and have been missed during the initial release of interface changing patches.
This patch is based on linux-next-20120322 code tree. See https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/22/339 for build failure report.
Signed-off-by: Alexandre Bounine alexandre.bounine@idt.com Reported-by: Paul Gortmaker paul.gortmaker@windriver.com
drivers/dma/sa11x0-dma.c | 2 +- drivers/net/irda/sa1100_ir.c | 2 +- sound/soc/sh/fsi.c | 7 +++---- sound/soc/soc-dmaengine-pcm.c | 2 +-
I have already taken care of sound/soc/soc-dmaengine-pcm.c: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.alsa.devel/96215
And this seems to be linux-next.
Mark, Is this part of the sound updates that went to Linus?
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:04:42AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 12:23 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
And this seems to be linux-next.
Mark, Is this part of the sound updates that went to Linus?
No, not yet - it was only sent after the merge window. Quite why nobody managed to notice it before then I don't know. It'll go to him soon, or at least to Takashi, but don't know if it'll make -rc1 or not.
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 10:42 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:04:42AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 12:23 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
And this seems to be linux-next.
Mark, Is this part of the sound updates that went to Linus?
No, not yet - it was only sent after the merge window. Quite why nobody managed to notice it before then I don't know. It'll go to him soon, or at least to Takashi, but don't know if it'll make -rc1 or not.
I should have noticed that sound needs update as well :(
Now either I drop these from 3.4 or merge Linus's tree and apply Alexandre's fix (as that is the right fix rather than one in asoc tree) And since this was required for RIO patches which are still WIP, I think I am leaning towards former.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:24:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
Now either I drop these from 3.4 or merge Linus's tree and apply Alexandre's fix (as that is the right fix rather than one in asoc tree) And since this was required for RIO patches which are still WIP, I think I am leaning towards former.
Gah, WTF is going on here? Has this API change not been sent to Linus already, and what is wrong with the changes which Fabio sent? I've already applied Fabio's change on the understanding that this API change done and dusted.
It seems better to do a minimal fix at this point rather than churning things again...
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 11:33 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 03:24:30PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
Now either I drop these from 3.4 or merge Linus's tree and apply Alexandre's fix (as that is the right fix rather than one in asoc tree) And since this was required for RIO patches which are still WIP, I think I am leaning towards former.
Gah, WTF is going on here? Has this API change not been sent to Linus already, and what is wrong with the changes which Fabio sent? I've already applied Fabio's change on the understanding that this API change done and dusted.
It seems better to do a minimal fix at this point rather than churning things again...
The change is technically correct, so don't worry it wont break anything, and API is frozen and not changing.
But we don't want the clients to use this additional parameter or be exposed to it if not required. Every client is expected to use the dmaengine wrappers for prepare and not invoke .device_ callbacks.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:18:26PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
But we don't want the clients to use this additional parameter or be exposed to it if not required. Every client is expected to use the dmaengine wrappers for prepare and not invoke .device_ callbacks.
Are those wrappers present in what's gone to Linus' tree, and can someone please send a patch to convert to using them?
On Mon, 2012-03-26 at 12:01 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 04:18:26PM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
But we don't want the clients to use this additional parameter or be exposed to it if not required. Every client is expected to use the dmaengine wrappers for prepare and not invoke .device_ callbacks.
Are those wrappers present in what's gone to Linus' tree, and can someone please send a patch to convert to using them?
Yes that are already there :-)
I will send sound specific update now
At Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:42:01 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:04:42AM +0530, Vinod Koul wrote:
On Sat, 2012-03-24 at 12:23 -0300, Fabio Estevam wrote:
And this seems to be linux-next.
Mark, Is this part of the sound updates that went to Linus?
No, not yet - it was only sent after the merge window. Quite why nobody managed to notice it before then I don't know. It'll go to him soon, or at least to Takashi, but don't know if it'll make -rc1 or not.
How is the situation now?
FYI, I'm going to send a pull request to Linus tomorrow or on Friday. If anything needed to be merged in rc1, it must be there in time.
thanks,
Takashi
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:44:22PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
No, not yet - it was only sent after the merge window. Quite why nobody managed to notice it before then I don't know. It'll go to him soon, or at least to Takashi, but don't know if it'll make -rc1 or not.
How is the situation now?
FYI, I'm going to send a pull request to Linus tomorrow or on Friday. If anything needed to be merged in rc1, it must be there in time.
It's in my tree, I didn't see an enormous rush to get it in TBH.
On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 16:51 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:44:22PM +0200, Takashi Iwai wrote:
Mark Brown wrote:
No, not yet - it was only sent after the merge window. Quite why nobody managed to notice it before then I don't know. It'll go to him soon, or at least to Takashi, but don't know if it'll make -rc1 or not.
How is the situation now?
FYI, I'm going to send a pull request to Linus tomorrow or on Friday. If anything needed to be merged in rc1, it must be there in time.
It's in my tree, I didn't see an enormous rush to get it in TBH.
I should be sending the pull request for slave-dma to Linus this evening. Can you please include the fix I did in your tree in your pull request.
participants (4)
-
Fabio Estevam -
Mark Brown -
Takashi Iwai -
Vinod Koul